It looks like it.

Last month the government announced the reintroduction of the terms Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Airforce. They were dropped in the 1960s.

Yesterday I read that all Canadian diplomatic missions are to now display pictures of the Queen. She is admittedly the head of state but it looks like a step backwards for a country that has spent decades trying to establish its own identity.

The first gift the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge brought us from their recent visit to Canada!

The thought did cross my mind that it could be an attempt to capitalise on the generally warm & cuddly sentiment the vist generated. I don't see it though. Harper's target now much surely be QC. People here either dislike the monarchy or just don't give a flying.

I wasn't aware we'd ever 'left' the British Empire. When the armed forces unified in '68 and the navy and airforce lost the Royal designation every other corps kept their names. The ships were still called HMCS and still are, Royal Canadian Artillery, etc - none of that changed. Hat badges still have the crown on them and the Governor General is still in place as the Queen's representative in Canada, to whom the PM must go for permission to suspend/prorogue parliament/democracy and likely for a number of other things. I know that after unification in '70 thrrough '73 Canadian soldiers still swore their oath to the Queen and even though our constitution was repatriated in '81 I'd be surprised if they still don't. The statutes governing the military in Canada (as taught in basic training) were Queen's Regulations And Orders and I'd also be surprised if another document has superceded that. Perhaps some of the BE members who are currently serving in the Canadian Forces could tell us if that's so.

If it has, and I think that questionable, then, unless the objective truly was "America-Lite" I think it's failed.

I don't think that was ever an objective though. I suggest that the Liberal governments sought to dilute the Canadian identity by the promotion of multi-culturalism, (an objective I support, not generally liking Canadians and thinking anything's better than a country of Red Greens). The Harperitics seek to reverse this by providing a rallying point for jingoism and the promotion of a rah-rah-Canada philosophy. It seems to me that the Royals are empty symbols for this movement and that the real intent is to create a reverence for authority such as we see the GOP display toward the Stars and Stripes and, of course, to the OiC.

All that said, I'm surprised that the Canadians had taken down the pictures of their monarch and renamed their boat, so I can't say that reversing these changes will much excite me.

The changes don't excite me either but I still wonder why it's being done.

I suspect that your analysis is pretty close to the truth. It's clear that the govt is taking a much harder stance on effnik issues (eg the proposed reintroduction of the anti-terror laws). Maybe Harper is trying to bring back the "old Canada"?

Something of the sort. To me, "old Canada" means places like Dufferin County or Bountiful BC, small towns of brutal religionists driven to get up in the morning by the opportunity to spit at members of the other religion. Havens for domestic abuse and inbredding. Places to which the survivors of the trenches didn't return, choosing to take their chances in Europe instead.

I don't much care for Mr. Harper's vision. If he wants to live in Dundalk ON or Cornerbrook NF, good luck to him, I'd rather have access to curry.

What a coup that would be for the Brits.

Interestingly this Tuesday HAARPer made all the embassies around the planet put up pictures of Queen Elizardbeth.

The Queen is still the Head of State. Would you believe it strange to find pictures of Obama in the equivalent US buildings. Storm in a teacup if you ask me.

I think you misunderstand the point here. Yes, she is still head of state. For many years, however, that has not been rammed in the faces of the wider world, or indeed, Canada. Now, it seems, it is to be. I'm trying to explore the possible reasons why.

This government is slashing spending all over the place. Why introduce seemingly pointless measures that will likely cost quite a lot of money?

Rammed in the face of the wider world, I thought we were talking about diplomatic missions. One could argue that the removal of such pictures in the past was inappropriate, but I know you will never agree with that

I agree with you. The requirement for non-state organizations to have to print things in both official languages is nonsense - let the consumer decide (I appreciate that the state is not having to spend anything here).

I fail to see how a few piccies of Liz will cost loads of money and, again, you need to explain the justification for removing them and renaming everything by those previously in charge.

The Air Cadets still swear their Oath to the Queen and the Band plays both the Canadian Anthem and The British one at the end of Parade.

Forth coming election in Ontario?

Appeal to the core conservative vote?

Is it only the Conservatives that believe that such a dignity should be afforded to the Head of State? Whom do the other supporters believe should be afforded such a dignity? Do they suggest that piccies of Liz should be replaced with piccies of Harper?

Some might suggest that posting up the current accepted head of state in all government offices is the first step..

the second step is to recognize Stephen Harper as the appropriate head of state!

Certainly the memo referring to the “Harper Government” as opposed to the “Government of Canada” might suggest that he as an Ego that could carry the role